Comments on: Conservatives fear cancer vaccine

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 02:15:15 +0000

boohiss you need to get your facts straight. i’m not stating anything with the original post regarding social conservatives and the cervical cancer vaccine. i’m merely a messenger sharing the news with readers.

second, the two – cervical cancer vaccine pill & morning after pill cases – are not at all “mighty” different. when i make statements, i’m thinking of the broader picture. what i’m getting at is the fact that the decisions of certain individuals are being controlled by others. simple as that. in one example we have a vaccine which essentially removes the risk of cervical cancer, yet social conservatives are fighting tooth and nail citing the likely increase of sexual promiscuity. in another example, we have the morning after pill that an innocent female may need in order to quell a one night mistake. i don’t give a shit if the pharmacist does not feel morally obligated not to sell the pill. if that’s the case, pull someone else from the back to make the sale.

we’re talking about people attempting to control the lives of others.

By: boohiss

boohiss — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:54:27 +0000

So, you’re claiming that *all* social conservatives are against this vaccine?

The pharmacist issue is mighty different, of course. I don’t think that birth control or the morning-after pill are immorral, but also I shouldn’t be forced to sell something I don’t want to sell. If that means that Wal-Mart or Walgreen fires me, then so be it. Look at is this way: if I’m a Jewish owner of a deli or something, should I be forced to sell products that aren’t kosher if I don’t want to sell them?

I question the motives of people who don’t want to sell birth control pills, but I do not question their right to do so.

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:18:38 +0000

This reminds me of the topic where pharmacists – who think that ~~birth control~~ morning after pills are immoral – can decide whether or not to distribute the pill. Look at the bigger picture.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 15:12:02 +0000

To me any opposition to the introduction of medical treatment on promiscuity grounds is not something to scratch ones head over, but to be appalled about. One one hand people complain about big government being too pushy and involved in the lives of citizens and then on the other hand seem to believe it is acceptable to make moral judgements on their sexual practices. Those who oppose making the vaccine widely available are effectively punishing others for their acts. They are clearly indicating that medical treatment shouldn’t be given to those who there is a moral objection to.

Doctors are obliged to help anyone with a medical need, not just those that they approve of. Societies should lead by example, surely not through judgement.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:41:26 +0000

The reason this vaccine has impact on sexual promiscuity is due to it’s effectiveness against the STD papilloma, which increases risk of cervical cancer. So there’s the correlation. What I believe “social conservatives” are objecting to is the *mandatory* immunization of teens. Meaning it becomes part of the standard set of immunizations. So let’s keep it in proportion here. Anyone who wants one can of course go get it, the debate is whether to make it part of the standard set for children. Don’t let the sensational headline confuse you.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:35:02 +0000

i apologize for the missing link. fixed. boohiss, i stated conservatives, i thought it was safe to assume that i did indeed mean social conservatives.

By: roberto Felgueiras

roberto Felgueiras — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:23:31 +0000

… sorry, money where their MOUTH is, naturally…

By: roberto Felgueiras

roberto Felgueiras — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:22:01 +0000

Anything that prevents Cancer needs to be applauded and and put to use. Any Pro lifers out there need to put their money where their life is and support and protect those currently livingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦

Also, I’d like a link to this story so I can get more factsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦

By: boohiss

boohiss — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:06:55 +0000

1) I don’t understand the connection between cervical cancer and promiscuous kids.

2) What source do you site to say “conservatives”? When you say “social conservatives say” something, you might just as soon say that “social conservatives are growing a mustache”. It doesn’t make any sense.

My thoughs: I’m a conservative, and I don’t think cervical cancer is holding back gobs of teens from premarital sex. I think if anything, it’s a combination of parents and AIDS/pregnancy.

Additionally, I have heard nothing about this vaccine. Does it literally prevent cervical cancer most of the time, like your standard vaccine, or is it simply something that might reduce the likelihood of cervical cancer in a lot of people? If cervical cancer is holding back people from having massive amounts of sex, then I think they should be damn sure that this vaccine is going to stop it.